Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (3403)	12/13/2002 3:55:29 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I also pointed out that the State is only forcing her to carry the child to term, she can give it up if she wants. That's what I found so cavalier. Pregnancy isn't just sitting in a holding tank for nine months. Dismissing it as such is, well, dismissive. What it costs the woman may indeed be the lesser harm to society than destroying the fetus, or it may not. That's a legitimate question and your perspective that the damage to sanctity of life is the greater harm is not unreasonable. What I was remarking about was your notion that pregnancy has no greater cost to the woman than being out of circulation for nine months. Orphanages and foster homes are preferable to death Maybe, maybe not. I don't doubt for a moment that there are people in the world who would opt to never have been born if that were feasible. Since the fetus doesn't have the opportunity for informed consent in the matter, the only question that remains is who makes the decision for him, you or his would-be mom.